These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Changes to War Mechanics

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#841 - 2012-04-21 00:03:48 UTC
Argus Sorn wrote:

Those small groups causing larger groups headaches are a vital part of eve. Nothing needs to be done to hinder them, they are a large part of the sandbox. If a 5 man corp wants to dec a 3000 man alliance, then more power to them - it shouldn't cost them 3 bil isk a week to do it.

If you are a large alliance and are decced by a small one, then deal with it. It's usually being done to hit logistics anyway and if your logistics are too stupid to know how to dodge a wardec then they don't deserve to live. There is no greater isk sink that a freighter full of goods, half of which is sent off into the void.

CCP has an interest in making 0.0 logistics more difficult, and privateer alliances and corp play a vital part of that process.


Funny thing is the same people that say they're annoyed with small corps war deccing them and that it shouldn't be so easy to do are the same people saying that the carebears in high sec should suck it up and accept the war decs.

Yet another representation of double standards.
Sigras
Conglomo
#842 - 2012-04-21 03:02:12 UTC
Argus Sorn wrote:
Those small groups causing larger groups headaches are a vital part of eve. Nothing needs to be done to hinder them, they are a large part of the sandbox. If a 5 man corp wants to dec a 3000 man alliance, then more power to them - it shouldn't cost them 3 bil isk a week to do it.

If you are a large alliance and are decced by a small one, then deal with it. It's usually being done to hit logistics anyway and if your logistics are too stupid to know how to dodge a wardec then they don't deserve to live.


I completely disagree . . . if you could guarantee that the 5 man allaince is a group of mains, and not just a group of alts who log in sporadically then I would agree with you, but as it stands, there is no way to fight a war with a corp like this. It makes large alliances use alts all of the time because of illegitimate wars against which they have no ability to fight back.

Argus Sorn wrote:
There is no greater isk sink that a freighter full of goods, half of which is sent off into the void.

This is axiomatically wrong because no isk is lost when a freighter full of goods gets destroyed. Rather isk is spawned into the game when this happens . . . is it a material sink? yes, is it a cost to the freighter pilot? yes, is it an isk sink? NO

Argus Sorn wrote:
CCP has an interest in making 0.0 logistics more difficult, and privateer alliances and corp play a vital part of that process.

again, I would agree with you if you could reliably get them to fight you, but eve characters are not humans. you cant find out where an eve character hides and blow up the station he's logged off in like you would with real pirates in real life.

Eve characters can log off and be completely safe, an advantage real pirates dont have, thus their offensive ability should also be stunted.
Argus Sorn
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#843 - 2012-04-21 06:12:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Argus Sorn
Sigras wrote:
Argus Sorn wrote:
Those small groups causing larger groups headaches are a vital part of eve. Nothing needs to be done to hinder them, they are a large part of the sandbox. If a 5 man corp wants to dec a 3000 man alliance, then more power to them - it shouldn't cost them 3 bil isk a week to do it.

If you are a large alliance and are decced by a small one, then deal with it. It's usually being done to hit logistics anyway and if your logistics are too stupid to know how to dodge a wardec then they don't deserve to live.


I completely disagree . . . if you could guarantee that the 5 man allaince is a group of mains, and not just a group of alts who log in sporadically then I would agree with you, but as it stands, there is no way to fight a war with a corp like this. It makes large alliances use alts all of the time because of illegitimate wars against which they have no ability to fight back.

Argus Sorn wrote:
There is no greater isk sink that a freighter full of goods, half of which is sent off into the void.

This is axiomatically wrong because no isk is lost when a freighter full of goods gets destroyed. Rather isk is spawned into the game when this happens . . . is it a material sink? yes, is it a cost to the freighter pilot? yes, is it an isk sink? NO

Argus Sorn wrote:
CCP has an interest in making 0.0 logistics more difficult, and privateer alliances and corp play a vital part of that process.

again, I would agree with you if you could reliably get them to fight you, but eve characters are not humans. you cant find out where an eve character hides and blow up the station he's logged off in like you would with real pirates in real life.

Eve characters can log off and be completely safe, an advantage real pirates dont have, thus their offensive ability should also be stunted.



You are correct it is a material sink. Although one could imagine the taxes and fees involved with buying a freighter full of goods is actually considerable. But yeah - I misspoke on that one.

As for the rest if they are alts who do not log in then you don't have a whole lot to worry about do you? Why not use alts yourself to move your logistics? Privateers are a fact of 0.0 life, and have been forever. The fact is that in order to lose assets to them you have to make a deliberate effort to do - you can be 100% free of them by not feeding them kills. So you have complete power over the amount of damage they do.

But seriously, it should cost some isk, but not be so much to be prohibitive. Large alliances do not need ccp to protect them with ridiculously high war dec fees. 4 billion a week to wardec the largest alliance in the game?

Argus
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#844 - 2012-04-21 14:31:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Joe Risalo wrote:

So they can't hae a button to make the bad men go away when the bad men have a button to allow them to practically kill anyone?
Sounds a bit like a double standard.

Trying to kill people is a type of gameplay. Making yourself invulnerable to other peoples attempts to kill you by pushing a button is literally anti-gameplay.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#845 - 2012-04-21 18:22:00 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

So they can't hae a button to make the bad men go away when the bad men have a button to allow them to practically kill anyone?
Sounds a bit like a double standard.

Trying to kill people is a type of gameplay. Making yourself invulnerable to other peoples attempts to kill you by pushing a button is literally anti-gameplay.


Exactly my point. That comments I've made are specifically sarcasm, including having a get out of the war button.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that if they large alliance expect the small casual corps to suck it up and realize that war decs are part of having a corp/alliance, then they need to suck it up and realize that being in a large alliance means you're a major target for people who just wanna annoy someone.

So basically, i'm telling them just because they don't like being decced by small corps doesn't mean that it should cost those small corps billions to dec an alliance. Suck it up and either go kill them, or realize that they're not doing anything to you and ignore them.
Dream Five
Renegade Pleasure Androids
#846 - 2012-04-23 05:15:26 UTC
It would be cool to get some indication if CCP is even reading any of this..
Nice Claran
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#847 - 2012-04-23 08:40:33 UTC
Dream Five wrote:
It would be cool to get some indication if CCP is even reading any of this..


Agreed!
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#848 - 2012-04-23 13:38:28 UTC
Dream Five wrote:
It would be cool to get some indication if CCP is even reading any of this..


I'm still here Smile
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#849 - 2012-04-23 17:01:24 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Dream Five wrote:
It would be cool to get some indication if CCP is even reading any of this..


I'm still here Smile


Since I know ya'll are listening, can you tell me if there are any plans as of yet to change the cost formula for wardecs that ya'll announced at fanfest so that the alliances aren't protected by costing billions to wardec them, or can you give that information out

If ya'll haven't done much looking onto it, here's how I feel about it

The initial costs to wardec someone needs to be increased. I suggest 200mil for a corp to dec, 500 mil for an alliance to dec
However, instead of the cost being determined by the number of members in the target corp, make the additional costs determined by the number of members you outnumber the target corp by.
This would make ya'lls job easier because ya'll wouldn't have to determine whether trial accounts, account alt characters, innactive, etc. etc. characters would count because this method would force the corps/alliances to maintain their own numbers

The only difficult part would be creating some kind of security blanket to keep players from forming 2 smaller corps that can wardec the target corp at base costs, but still work in conjunction with each other

The only idea i have to possibly make it to where if you wardec me, you're also wardeccing anyone else wardeccing me. War targets show up ONLY as war targets in local and other chat windows, and also only show as war targets on the overview, even if you're fleeted with them, which means it becomes extremely difficult to maintain without shooting the wrong person, and make any out of game assistance with managing this against the rules.

Just a suggestion...
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#850 - 2012-04-23 17:25:10 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:

- If a younger or smaller corp wants to start a war, then the price should be scaled down accordingly.


Easily abused.

a) Form corp with 1-day old alt
b) Declare war for cheap since you're "young"
c) Bring in more experienced members to actually prosecute the war
d) Rinse-repeat next week / month



These "abuses" can be addressed though (don't allow attacking corps to accept new members during the war, or maybe no more than 25% of what they had when they declared the war, or something like that).

And yet as has been pointed out many times the system CCP has indicated they would like to put in place. is also easily abused. Such as ohhhh, asking for everyone in your corp or alliance to add alts to artificially inflate your numbers to increase the price of a war on you.

At least the exploit you mentioned is the same for corps of any size, where just like this bull@#% pricing scheme the second exploit even favors large corps more than small one too.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#851 - 2012-04-23 21:14:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Joe Risalo wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Dream Five wrote:
It would be cool to get some indication if CCP is even reading any of this..


I'm still here Smile

The initial costs to wardec someone needs to be increased. I suggest 200mil for a corp to dec, 500 mil for an alliance to dec.

Those costs are absurd. Virtually nobody would be willing to pay 500 million to declare war on anyone, mercenaries in particular would be completely screwed over since even fewer people would be willing to hire them.

Putting large, arbitrary money barriers on war is entirely contrary to the idea that wars wars are underutilized and should be used more often. Making things more expensive won't make them more commonplace and more useful to the average player, it will prohibit anyone who isn't in a large alliance from using wars and will protect them from wars themselves.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#852 - 2012-04-23 21:28:41 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:

Putting large, arbitrary money barriers on war is entirely contrary to the idea that wars wars are underutilized and should be used more often. Making things more expensive won't make them more commonplace and more useful to the average player, it will prohibit anyone who isn't in a large alliance from using wars and will protect them from wars themselves.


Yes, CCP should completely drop the idea of Isk fees as some sort of barrier of entry for declaring war. Isk plays a role naturally in terms of ships costs etc, and price of mercenaries if they're used. I know CCP wants to add ISKs sinks into the game, but wardecs and other PvP activities are really not the appropriate place.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#853 - 2012-04-23 21:45:26 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:

Putting large, arbitrary money barriers on war is entirely contrary to the idea that wars wars are underutilized and should be used more often. Making things more expensive won't make them more commonplace and more useful to the average player, it will prohibit anyone who isn't in a large alliance from using wars and will protect them from wars themselves.


Yes, CCP should completely drop the idea of Isk fees as some sort of barrier of entry for declaring war. Isk plays a role naturally in terms of ships costs etc, and price of mercenaries if they're used. I know CCP wants to add ISKs sinks into the game, but wardecs and other PvP activities are really not the appropriate place.


lol, i hope ya'll are being sarcastic...

so the current plans to make war cost billions to dec an alliance is ok?

Mine is simple 200 of 500 mil depending on if you're a corp or alliance. if you don't outnumber your opponent, then you're fine...If you do, then you may more.

200 to 500 mil to face someone you equally match or who outnumbers you is fine. However, 3 billion to dec an alliance who outnumbers you by 3 thousand players is not fine.
Severian Carnifex
#854 - 2012-04-23 22:00:56 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Xorv wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:

Putting large, arbitrary money barriers on war is entirely contrary to the idea that wars wars are underutilized and should be used more often. Making things more expensive won't make them more commonplace and more useful to the average player, it will prohibit anyone who isn't in a large alliance from using wars and will protect them from wars themselves.


Yes, CCP should completely drop the idea of Isk fees as some sort of barrier of entry for declaring war. Isk plays a role naturally in terms of ships costs etc, and price of mercenaries if they're used. I know CCP wants to add ISKs sinks into the game, but wardecs and other PvP activities are really not the appropriate place.


lol, i hope ya'll are being sarcastic...

so the current plans to make war cost billions to dec an alliance is ok?

Mine is simple 200 of 500 mil depending on if you're a corp or alliance. if you don't outnumber your opponent, then you're fine...If you do, then you may more.

200 to 500 mil to face someone you equally match or who outnumbers you is fine. However, 3 billion to dec an alliance who outnumbers you by 3 thousand players is not fine.


I support yours numbers.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#855 - 2012-04-23 22:21:33 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Dream Five wrote:
It would be cool to get some indication if CCP is even reading any of this..

I'm still here Smile

See, SoniClover, that wasn't too hard to do, and it didn't take much time, either. Now, everyone knows you are actually reading the forum thread, even if you don't have time to respond to every post.

A few suggestions for mixing up some other quick and somewhat noncommittal responses:

`"Hmm... interesting idea, I'll discuss it with the team."

"Yeah, we've been thinking about that, too."

"Yeah, we're looking into that."

"We should have something new to post soon."

"What do you all think of this idea: [Insert one liner idea here]"

"[Insert minor feature here] is up on SIsi. Please go try it out and let us know if it works or not."

Feel free to cut-and-paste.... :)

Also, I suggest NOT using any negative responses, such as "No, I don't think so", or "That won't work". Negative responses tend to trigger a flood of wall-of-text arguments, to which you probably don't have the time nor the inclination to respond.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#856 - 2012-04-23 22:30:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Xorv
Joe Risalo wrote:
Xorv wrote:

Yes, CCP should completely drop the idea of Isk fees as some sort of barrier of entry for declaring war. Isk plays a role naturally in terms of ships costs etc, and price of mercenaries if they're used. I know CCP wants to add ISKs sinks into the game, but wardecs and other PvP activities are really not the appropriate place.


lol, i hope ya'll are being sarcastic...

so the current plans to make war cost billions to dec an alliance is ok?


No, and no.

Ideally the fees if there are any fees at all should be a token amount. Where CCP needs to put their attention on is issues of war and risk avoidance in terms of alts, NPC corps, corp hoping, and things like Dec shields... and that's for all involved. Those issues of course aren't simple fixes, but they're the fixes that need to made.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#857 - 2012-04-23 22:32:49 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Xorv wrote:

Yes, CCP should completely drop the idea of Isk fees as some sort of barrier of entry for declaring war. Isk plays a role naturally in terms of ships costs etc, and price of mercenaries if they're used. I know CCP wants to add ISKs sinks into the game, but wardecs and other PvP activities are really not the appropriate place.


lol, i hope ya'll are being sarcastic...

so the current plans to make war cost billions to dec an alliance is ok?


No, and no.

Ideally the fees if there are any fees at all should be a token amount. Where CCP needs to put their attention on is issues of war and risk avoidance in terms of alts, NPC corps, corp hoping, and things like Dec shields... and that's for all involved. Those issues of course aren't simple fixes, but they're the fixes that need to made.


Oh, ok, so all the benefits of the new war dec system should be solely for the sake of the aggressor and the target should have absolutely nothing in their favor, and if fact, it should be easier and cheaper to war dec them and they shouldn't have any means of being able to get out of it besides paying, but of course even if they pay the aggressor should be able to just simply take their money and keep them wardecced anyway.

Dude, seriously... You're crazy
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#858 - 2012-04-23 23:15:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Xorv
Joe Risalo wrote:
Xorv wrote:

No, and no.

Ideally the fees if there are any fees at all should be a token amount. Where CCP needs to put their attention on is issues of war and risk avoidance in terms of alts, NPC corps, corp hoping, and things like Dec shields... and that's for all involved. Those issues of course aren't simple fixes, but they're the fixes that need to made.


Oh, ok, so all the benefits of the new war dec system should be solely for the sake of the aggressor and the target should have absolutely nothing in their favor, and if fact, it should be easier and cheaper to war dec them and they shouldn't have any means of being able to get out of it besides paying, but of course even if they pay the aggressor should be able to just simply take their money and keep them wardecced anyway.

Dude, seriously... You're crazy


I suppose for those that come from mostly PvE Themepark MMOs my point of view would seem crazy. However, for those that cut their teeth on early UO, Shadowbane, or more recent games like Darkfall, it's your position that seems crazy, not mine. Also, EVE being declared a Sandbox and a PvP orientated game by CCP, puts it firmly in the company of those games, not EQ, WoW and their respective clones.

Now down to the rest of what you said...

You seem to have confused my position as one that favors only the declarer of a wardec, or as you described it the "aggressor". This is incorrect I favor those who are willing to fight for what they have or what they want, and when I listed issues that CCP needed to address they apply to the "aggressor" as well as the defender.

Your whole notion of an "aggressor" though is flawed. Consider the hypothetical example a CCP dev gave of a mining corp declaring war on another mining corp because the second mining corp have pushed into the first's market and cutting their mineral production and their profits. Who's the aggressor? Now mining corp 1 may declare war on mining corp 2 but there's a risk in that the second corp may have way more ISK reserves and in response to the wardec hires Mercenaries to push the war heavily in their favor, or they might have strong allies that will do it for free.

Now the problems isn't that these corps can wardec each other for free or little ISK, it's that they can wardec with PvP alts while their resource gathering and Isk generating characters remain free from hostilities and anonymous. Or either can corp hop, or that they can simply disband their corp and join an NPC corp, and short of suicide ganking there's little to be done about that.

If you're not willing to defend yourself or fight for resources you deserve to be bottom of the barrel or someone else's peon.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#859 - 2012-04-24 01:33:47 UTC
Xorv wrote:

I suppose for those that come from mostly PvE Themepark MMOs my point of view would seem crazy. However, for those that cut their teeth on early UO, Shadowbane, or more recent games like Darkfall, it's your position that seems crazy, not mine. Also, EVE being declared a Sandbox and a PvP orientated game by CCP, puts it firmly in the company of those games, not EQ, WoW and their respective clones.

Now down to the rest of what you said...

You seem to have confused my position as one that favors only the declarer of a wardec, or as you described it the "aggressor". This is incorrect I favor those who are willing to fight for what they have or what they want, and when I listed issues that CCP needed to address they apply to the "aggressor" as well as the defender.

Your whole notion of an "aggressor" though is flawed. Consider the hypothetical example a CCP dev gave of a mining corp declaring war on another mining corp because the second mining corp have pushed into the first's market and cutting their mineral production and their profits. Who's the aggressor? Now mining corp 1 may declare war on mining corp 2 but there's a risk in that the second corp may have way more ISK reserves and in response to the wardec hires Mercenaries to push the war heavily in their favor, or they might have strong allies that will do it for free.

Now the problems isn't that these corps can wardec each other for free or little ISK, it's that they can wardec with PvP alts while their resource gathering and Isk generating characters remain free from hostilities and anonymous. Or either can corp hop, or that they can simply disband their corp and join an NPC corp, and short of suicide ganking there's little to be done about that.

If you're not willing to defend yourself or fight for resources you deserve to be bottom of the barrel or someone else's peon.


Your assumption though is that the wardec system is actually being used for intended purposes like what you descibed.
HOWEVER, we all know that the wardec system is quite commonly more utilized by players who are simply attempting to get kills from players whom they assume to be weak.
So, instead of allowing those players to have free, somwhat risk free killmails while others are out in low/null/wh space actually earning their kills, we can instead charge a reasonable fee, expecially when you consider that the fee for a wardec is essentially paying CONCORD to look the other way while you kill some people.

If, like in your example, the players are strong in their reasons for wardeccing another party, then they'll be willing to pay the 200 or 500 mil fees that I suggested because their potential income once the war is over could essentially be much more.
However, if those killmail padding war corps isn't willing to pay a small isk fee, then maybe they can go out into low/null/wh space and take some risks in order to earn those kills.

Sure, it's on the targetted party to be able to defend themselves, but most of those war corps aren't going to dec someone who can fight back. Now, if everyone could fight back, then there'd be people in here whining to make high sec less safe and more like low so that they can get their free kills that way.
Dream Five
Renegade Pleasure Androids
#860 - 2012-04-24 01:52:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Dream Five
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Dream Five wrote:
It would be cool to get some indication if CCP is even reading any of this..


I'm still here Smile

The initial costs to wardec someone needs to be increased. I suggest 200mil for a corp to dec, 500 mil for an alliance to dec.

Those costs are absurd. Virtually nobody would be willing to pay 500 million to declare war on anyone, mercenaries in particular would be completely screwed over since even fewer people would be willing to hire them.

Putting large, arbitrary money barriers on war is entirely contrary to the idea that wars wars are underutilized and should be used more often. Making things more expensive won't make them more commonplace and more useful to the average player, it will prohibit anyone who isn't in a large alliance from using wars and will protect them from wars themselves.


Well, lets just make the cost zero then and turn hisec into lowsec (sarcasm). Hisec however is hisec because it was originally designed to accomodate people who prefer a certain playstyle - low risk, low reward but steady growth. This is the philosophy of EVE. Lowsec is higher rewards, higher risks and 0.0 is even more so. The main problem is hisec towers which cannot be removed. Which is why again i was proposing to only allow to attack hisec towers and don't allow to attack players unless they engage in tower defense. Again, otherwise there is no point in inconveniencing players in player corps to drop out to NPC corp. Or alternately CCP should allow to wardec individuals. Otherwise the inconvenience exercise is a bit pointless. People can still do all the functions by contracting stuff from their NPC alts to corp and access corp assets, it just takes more clicking now.

If you think this change will allow you to disrupt anybody's logistics, that's of course not true - people will just drop out their logistics alts and nothing will change. Since this doesn't fundamentally change anything.. don't inconvenience people with dropping out to NPC corps maybe?

Btw i can definitely see how wardeccing a large alliance should cost more, because theoretically it's a bigger opportunity for targets.

There isn't going to be a universal number that's going to fit everyone's bill. Some people inherently make more ISK than others so it's going to be cheap or expensive for them to wardec for any given fixed number. I do agree though that a weeks' worth of passive annoyance should cost at least some considerable sum, especially for annoying people in small corps. If you want to grief you should take some risks. There's also something to be said about the fact that wars should not be just for anyone. I actually think wars should be more expensive, so that it's really something that's worth fighting for for the aggressor, otherwise they shouldn't start a war just for ***** and giggles.

Or maybe there should be 2 types of wardec - one for POS only, another also for pilots. The second kind should be a lot more expensive (CONCORD giving a license to kill shouldn't be cheap would you agree)

Anyway i think it's pretty clear to everyone that the POS issue is clearly an issue. Wars should definitely take care of that. In the current proposal they do. Wardeccing individuals is definitely not going to go well as a lot of people will just stop playing because of a few serial griefers. And wardeccing corps for the grief of dropping out of corp is kinda silly. So again.. why not make wars to be strictly means for taking out hisec POSes? There is no way CCP isn't going to make everyone happy simultaneously. Some people just want to PVP, others just don't. The grief to drop out of corp exercise seems rather pointless.